Michael E. Zimmerman

Originally published in French in 1982, Schürmann's book is an elegant and provocative answer to the question: "in light of Heidegger's deconstruction of the metaphysical bases for moral and political action, what is to be done?" According to Schürmann, in the era for which metaphysical first principles no longer provide the basis for acting, humanity will be called upon simply to respond appropriately to the ever-shifting play of presencing. Anarchy, then, means absence of rule, not of rules. Those who have asked why Heidegger never came up with an "ethics" fail to understand that ethics, as traditionally understood, is grounded in the metaphysical first principles that Heidegger sought to de-construct. Schürmann argues that "the backbone of metaphysics" involves establishing rules for thinking and doing, founding principles for making the world "intelligible and masterable." "'Anarchy,' on the other hand, designates the withering away of such a rule, the relaxing of its hold". At the end of the book, Schürmann poses and answers a series of objections about the potential dangers of the anarchistic implications of Heidegger's thought, especially in view of the latter's affiliation with National Socialism from 1933 to the mid-1930s.

Radical ecology typically brings to mind media images of ecological activists standing before loggers' saws, staging anti-nuclear marches, and confronting polluters on the high seas. Yet for more than twenty years, the activities of organizations such as the Greens and Earth First! have been influenced by a diverse, less-publicized group of radical ecological philosophers. It is their work—the philosophical underpinnings of the radical ecological movement—that is the subject of _Contesting Earth's Future_. The book offers a much-needed, balanced appraisal of radical ecology's principles, goals, and limitations. Michael Zimmerman critically examines the movement's three major branches—deep ecology, social ecology, and ecofeminism. He also situates radical ecology within the complex cultural and political terrain of the late twentieth century, showing its relation to Martin Heidegger's anti-technological thought, 1960s counterculturalism, and contemporary theories of poststructuralism and postmodernity. An early and influential ecological thinker, Zimmerman is uniquely qualified to provide a broad overview of radical environmentalism and delineate its various schools of thought. He clearly describes their defining arguments and internecine disputes, among them the charge that deep ecology is an anti-modern, proto-fascist ideology. Reflecting both the movement's promise and its dangers, this book is essential reading for all those concerned with the worldwide ecological crisis.

Michel Haar's book strikes an admirable balance between a sympathetic analysis of, and a critical dialogue with Heidegger's work. In clear and elegant prose, Haar elucidates obscure passages and raises critical questions about issues that are usually ignored. He argues that despite Heidegger's preoccupation with the "history of being," he was also concerned with the "nonhistorical," that is, with what cannot be included within history. Heidegger maintained that the history of being began with the Greeks and culminates in modern technology, defined as the disclosure of all entities as a completely available "standing reserve" that is useful for enhancing the endless drive for more power. Haar asks: Did Heidegger reduce being to its history? and as a result, did he develop his own version of Hegel's system of world history? Haar answers in the negative: "In effect the development of the history of Being from the Greek logos to modern technology does not exclude, but implies a reserve, an opacity, a reverse side [envers] that it is never possible to disclose. It is this withdrawn and non-manifest dimension that makes history a destiny, and not the logical unfolding that is in Hegel answerable to an eternal necessity". According to Haar, the earth constitutes the basis for the nonhistorical domain that cannot be encompassed within the history of being.

Recently several philosophers have argued that environmental reform movements cannot halt humankind’s destruction of the biosphere because they still operate within the anthropocentric humanism that forms the root of the ecological crisis. According to “radical” environmentalists, disaster can be averted only if we adopt a nonanthropocentric understanding of reality that teaches us to live harmoniouslyon the Earth. Martin Heidegger agrees that humanism leads human beings beyond their proper limits while forcing other beings beyond their limits as weIl. The doctrine of the “rights of man” justifies human exploitation of nonhuman beings. Paradoxically, however, the doctrine of rights for nonhuman beings does not escape the orbit of humanism. According to Heidegger, a nonanthropocentric conception of humanity and its relation to nature must go beyond the doctrine of rights. We can dweIl harmoniously on Earth only by submitting to our primary obligation: to be open for the Being of beings. We need a new way of understanding Being, a new ethos, that lets beings manifest themselves not merely as objects for human ends, but as intrinsically important. Heidegger calls this ethos the “fourfold” of earth and sky, gods and mortals. Humanists argue that Heidegger is wrong to abandon the principle of human rights in favor of the notion that we are obligated to “let beings be,” while some radical environmentalists accuse hirn of being a humanist because he supposedly overestimates the importance of humankind’s ability to speak. Heidegger insists, however, that language makes possible culture, without which thereis no human experience of nature. An environmentally sound ethos. can arise, according to Heidegger, only from a shift within the cultural heritage of the West. Richard Rorty agrees that we must become open for a new “conversation” with the West, even if this requires abandoning traditionally important fields such as epistemology. The need to develop a new understanding of Being is so great that thinkers from the analytic and continental traditions of philosophy are finally initiating a long-overdue dialogue

J. Baird Callicott seeks to resolve the problem of the intrinsic value of nature by utilizing a nondualistic paradigm derived from quantum theory. His approach is twofold. According to his less radical approach, quantum theory shows that properties once considered to be “primary” and “objective” are in fact the products of interactions between observer and observed. Values are also the products of such interactions. According to his more radical approach, quantum theory’s doctrine of internal relations is the model for the idea that everything is intrinsically valuable because the “I” is intrinsically valuable and related to everything else. I argue that humanity’s treatment of nature will become respectful only as humanity’s awareness evolves toward nondualism, and that such nondualistic awareness will not be produced by changes in scientific theory alone. Nevertheless, as Callicott suggests, such changes may be harbingers of evolutionary trends in human awareness. I conclude with a sketch of how nondualism, especially in its panentheistic version, provides the basis for environmental ethics